Share this story

A conservative media company has sued YouTube, saying that the online video giant illegally censors the short videos it produces.

PragerU was founded in 2011 by Dennis Prager, a prominent conservative writer and radio talk show host. The organization is a nonprofit that espouses conservative viewpoints on various issues by means of short, animated videos, which it posts on its own website, as well as its YouTube channel.

"Google/YouTube have represented that their platforms and services are intended to effectuate the exercise free speech among the public," write PragerU lawyers in the organization's complaint (PDF), filed Monday. "As applied to PragerU, Google/YouTube use their restricted mode filtering not to protect younger or sensitive viewers from 'inappropriate' video content, but as a political gag mechanism to silence PragerU."

PragerU says that at least 37 of its videos continue to be censored by "restricted mode filtering," which limits views based on certain characteristics, including the age of the viewer. Those videos include "educational content ranging from the legal creation of Israel and the history of the Korean War, to the idea of diversity of thought on college campuses."

YouTube's actions are "absurd, arbitrary, capricious, and devoid of any rational basis," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit cites cases like Fashion Valley Mall v. National Labor Relations Board, in which the California Supreme Court allowed protesters to pass out leaflets on mall property, even though they were advocating for boycotts of certain stores.

Another precedent PragerU points to is Marsh v. Alabama, a US Supreme Court case in which a Jehovah's Witness was handing out religious pamphlets on the sidewalk in Chickasaw, a privately owned "company town" near Mobile. The high court ruled that Grace Marsh had a right to hand out pamphlets even though the sidewalk she stood on was owned by a private corporation.

The lawsuit includes a long list of PragerU videos that have been restricted or "demonetized" by YouTube, and it lists videos on similar topics that have not been restricted. For instance, PragerU claims its YouTube video "Are the police racist?" was restricted or demonetized, but it points to a list of six other videos related to police behavior and racism that weren't restricted.

Conservatives aren't the only ones who feel that YouTube has censored or demonetized their videos. Earlier this year, a British YouTuber who made videos with a "feminist and queer perspective" complained that her videos were being filtered into a restricted mode and were marked as "potentially inappropriate content."

"We believe they are engaging in an arbitrary and capricious use of their ‘restricted mode’ and ‘demonetization’ to restrict conservative political thought," said PragerU founder Dennis Prager in a statement (PDF) about the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that YouTube's policy violates the First Amendment, the California Constitution's right to free speech and California civil rights laws, and the Lanham Act, which bars unfair competition.

679 Reader Comments

I have an honest question. I fear it will be perceived as trolling, I'm honestly questioning though.

When I read the comment forums here at ARS on some of these controversial issues, one of the common responses I *think* I see is the idea that since Google is a private company, they have the right to host/promote whatever they want; that the demands of free speech are not valid because it's not the government we're talking about here. This was a common opinion regarding the nazi dude's frustrations getting hosted or whatever recently.

On the flip side is the common carrier ideas. Provide a service, provide it to everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a government bus or a private bus company any one can sit in your bus and sit where they want. Same with the baker controversies. You're a baker. You don't get to decide who you bake cakes for based on what they do in their bedroom.

These two view points seem inconsistent to me. What is the clarification I am missing.

And another question, as long as I'm already in long post mode... One of the recurring themes with legislating that "content" transporters like ISPs and Googles (as opposed to content creators) can't be held responsible for what they host, is the complaint that it would cost too much and be prohibitive to be held responsible for the legality of the content they transport. But as a company like google or other internet service exercises their right to decide who they do business with and who they don't, don't they run the risk of the invalidating the claim? Can't the judge come back and say "you apparently DO have the bandwidth to police your content when it's in the interest of your business model, but not the laws of the land?"

You are mixing a few separate issues here. Google being private matters because, generally speaking, the First Amendment only applies to *government* restricting speech (and very originally, it only applied to the *federal* government, until I believe the 14th Amendment).

The "common carrier" idea is a concept that is, when it comes to Google and the like, not enshrined in any law whatsoever. Basically, it applies to landline phone service (and to some extent cellular), but little else.

You people are not going to like this reasoning when it goes all "Continuum" on us.

Or "Dark Matter"...

Or... ...must I list them all?

I loved "Continuum", it was a great show, had a lot to say about the three-way balance of power between individuals, corporations, and government, and it's totally irrelevant here.

The government has a well developed set of tools to deal with a single corporation or cartel exercising suppressive market power. It's called antitrust law. We also have a general set of tools that government already uses to impose consumer/citizen-protecting obligations on entire industries. They're called regulations.

The Europeans recently enacted a hybrid of the two, a privacy regulation that includes monopoly-busting data rights. When that goes into effect next May, any social media or data publishing company will be required to give a copy of your data back to you in a machine readable format ingestible by competitors. Don't like Facebook? Take your data with you, give it to a social media startup, and have your posts and shares and photos there.

If what you really care about is the excessive market power of corporations, are you supporting the FTC? The EPA? Are you calling your congressperson and telling them to stop gutting the power of the CFPB? Are you demanding the DOJ start enforcing antitrust laws again?

Because if you're afraid of "Continuum" and the corporate Congress, that's what you should be doing.

I'm just not feeling very well protected.

Have I contacted my Congressman? Every time I want them to hear me. It is is my post history - take my word; don't wade through it-

Demanding? No; I'm warning.

...as did all the science-fictionprediction writers.

Don't paint a rosy picture of 'government has this' when government is owned by corporations and had laws written to protect theme.g. Equifax, McDonald's.

If one entity has enough market power to silence others on its own, and they wield that power abusively, that's not a free speech problem. It's an antitrust problem. The solution is to enforce antitrust laws and promote market competition.

The only possible problem here is that YouTube, possibly, is the only viable soapbox. Even if you accept that to be true, we solve this problem by creating a better market for soapboxes, not forcing any soapbox owner to do business with people. You could have 1,000 soapboxes, and if the owners of all of them want to refuse to lend them to Nazis, that's 1,000 individual cases of their freedom of association (to not associate with Nazis) at work.

I agree completely that there would be zero problem with this if YouTube had lots of significant competition. The problem is that it doesn't, and is unlikely to have any without government intervention because of the nature of social media.

Physical objects become less valuable the more common they are. Compare the value of a pound of sand to a pound of gold. Social networks become more valuable as more people participate. Consider the telephone. The very first telephone ever made was useless. There was nobody for it to talk to. When the second phone was made, now A could call B (A>B) and B could call A (B>A). That has some use, but not a lot. With the third phone the list of possible calls became A>B, A>C, B>A, B>C, C>A and C>B. That is a big increase in utility by adding a third phone, and it just keeps getting bigger. The number of possible calls is N!, where N is the number of phones.

Social networks like Facebook and YouTube derive most of their value from the fact that everybody uses them, and that value is self-perpetuating. Any new competitors will be a network of hundreds of people competing against a network of hundreds of millions of people. They will be doomed to serving niche audiences, and a handful of private corporations will have de facto control of the public square. We could break up large networks, but that also destroys most of their utility. A technological breakthrough can replace an old network with a new one, but the same pressures will create new monopolies within a generation. The only option I see is government regulation that forces the big private networks to be content neutral.

Has anybody got a better solution? I hope there is.

Yes, I already gave you the better solution, it's called antitrust law.

How can you apply antitrust law in this case? There is no censorship. Youtube doesn't stop Prageru from posting videos.There is no monopoly. Prageru has its own website. Nobody stops them from monetizing views. There are millions of websites living on pay-per-view or pay-per-click. If the advertisers are not interested it's their problem and theirs alone. Youtube is not competing on the segment of conservative rants.

The above discussion was about how YouTube is competing in the segments of social media sites and independent online video publishing. In the latter category it's a beast. But if you're arguing YouTube doesn't have market power to suppress PragerU... that just means we don't need any legal action right now. That's no law vs. antitrust law, still doesn't justify inventing a new inside-out free speech regime.

I was making the point that artists do care about where their work is performed or displayed... And that it wasn't a partisan issue...

Infact I would say the baker has a stronger emotional/personal connection to his cake then the rolling Stones to a pressed disk. Because the cake is a one off bespoke "masterpiece" for a specific event... The disk is a mass produced product sold to faceless masses. Ergo the baker is participating in the event or feels as such. (Though the law probably couldnt care less about that fact)

That's exactly why I described the example as the Stones selling actual live performances, not pressed commodity CDs. But you conveniently ignored that.

Because the argument had previously been made that the cake not the baker himself was participating in the wedding. So I was pointing out CD/song not the Stones them selves was participating in the Trump rally, and offense was still taken... To many artists separating the expression from the self is hard...

If that's your example... again, we're talking about businesses that publicly post prices and open their doors to the public. Such businesses do not typically ask how the product will be used. Does the Walmart clerk stop you and ask if your Rolling Stones CD will be used during a satanic ritual in your basement? Or do they take your money, give you your product, and conclude the transaction?

If a baker wants total freedom to sell cakes only on commission and pick and choose their clientele, they can legally do that. The baker chooses to open a public storefront and chooses to publish standard prices for their goods. If they can't separate their artistic expression from their products, the obvious solution is to not advertise their products to the general public. Otherwise they will end up with people buying their products and using them however they want, which is the entire point of sales to the general public.

Is the government ordering the filtering? If not, then no, it doesn't.

So the "don't want to make a cake for the gay wedding" guy is in the clear?

Would you eat that cake if he was forced to make it?

Forced? The baker isn't being forced to do anything and has several options of his choosing:

1) Make wedding cakes for everyone who wants to buy one2) Don't make wedding cakes at all3) Don't bake for a living

What he's not allowed to do is discriminate against protected classes.

We start from the assumption that he doesn't want to bake that cake. His mind, his homophobic issues, his baking skills.. So yeah, if he does it, it would be "forced".

Now the question is not if his beliefs are moral or if the customer is discriminated. The question is why would one knowingly wish to be a customer in this scenario? Why would I want to go into a shop knowing the owner moral values are questionable? Why would I pay him and keep his business afloat?..Unless he's holding a monopoly on wedding cakes, which is impossible, the best course of action imho is to steer clear and let everyone else know about it.

I'm not saying I'll shop there. If someone opens a bakery and some of the demonstration cakes have swastikas and white hoods and Jerry Falwell's face, I'm probably turning around and leaving. I'm not required to shop there.

But as a consumer, that should be my right, not his. I should not be barred from entering the premises of his establishment based on my race. I should have the freedom to go in, view what he's selling, and leave.

By the way, this is also why I'm so infuriated by idiotic claims like "if the baker loses, Muslim chefs will be forced to serve pork". No they won't. Anti-discrimination laws do not force people to make specific products, they just require them to offer those products equally in a public-facing business. You can still run a halal food restaurant and tell the guy asking for a ham sandwich to go away. What you can't do is refuse to sell your halal food to someone because they're Christian or Jewish. This is why, 50 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, you still have business that only sell halal food, and business that only sell kosher food, and businesses that only sell vegan food, etc. There's no danger of that boat being rocked at all.

I was making the point that artists do care about where their work is performed or displayed... And that it wasn't a partisan issue...

Infact I would say the baker has a stronger emotional/personal connection to his cake then the rolling Stones to a pressed disk. Because the cake is a one off bespoke "masterpiece" for a specific event... The disk is a mass produced product sold to faceless masses. Ergo the baker is participating in the event or feels as such. (Though the law probably couldnt care less about that fact)

That's exactly why I described the example as the Stones selling actual live performances, not pressed commodity CDs. But you conveniently ignored that.

Because the argument had previously been made that the cake not the baker himself was participating in the wedding. So I was pointing out CD/song not the Stones them selves was participating in the Trump rally, and offense was still taken... To many artists separating the expression from the self is hard...

If that's your example... again, we're talking about businesses that publicly post prices and open their doors to the public. Such businesses do not typically ask how the product will be used. Does the Walmart clerk stop you and ask if your Rolling Stones CD will be used during a satanic ritual in your basement? Or do they take your money, give you your product, and conclude the transaction?

If a baker wants total freedom to sell cakes only on commission and pick and choose their clientele, they can legally do that. The baker chooses to open a public storefront and chooses to publish standard prices for their goods. If they can't separate their artistic expression from their products, the obvious solution is to not advertise their products to the general public. Otherwise they will end up with people buying their products and using them however they want, which is the entire point of sales to the general public.

A wedding cake often is a bespoke commissioned work. That just happens to be sold in the same place as the other generic goods such as cookies...

I'm not arguing whether or not it is "sold to the general public" just that emotionally it is quite reasonable that baker consider themselves a participant in the event (like the rolling Stones via their mass produced album). And how a baker could consider it an expressive act in support of said event.

Also being commission only with no public storefront is not always protection. Many wedding photographers have no storefront and only work on commission yet they still run afoul of these laws.

How is a legal right "along the lines" of refusing to do business with a homophobic baker?I didn't say he should be allowed to refuse you. I'm saying that if chooses to make his views public I would feel like betraying those exact moral values he's trampling on if I buy from him.

Do you think you've gained something if you're black and go get a hair cut in a KKK saloon? Or maybe go for a beer in a nazi pub? What's the point? Exercising your rights is more important than enjoying life?

You do realize that having lunch in a KKK cafe was exactly what many civil rights activists did as a protest, don't you? Do you think that civil rights would have gotten anywhere if all they did was write on Yelp "Don't go there, the staff dress kinda funny"? Rosa Parks refused to abide KKK inspired rules on a bus and wound up in jail and sparking major reforms. One of the major turning points in the civil rights movement was the Selma march where a bunch of blacks got the living crap beat out of them.

So yeah, sometimes exercising your rights IS A FUCKTON MORE IMPORTANT THAN ENJOYING LIFE.

You keep coming up with these weird examples that have no resemblance with the case in point. That was racial segregation on a public service. For a comparable situation imagine Rosa Parks would have ordered a limo with a driver she knew was a racist. Now why would she do that?I'm not sure why you're so angry. Maybe I'm just lucky and don't need to defend my rights as often as you do. Or maybe you really like cakes?..

A wedding cake often is a bespoke commissioned work. That just happens to be sold in the same place as the other generic goods such as cookies...

Yeah, no. We're not talking about culinary Mona Lisas here. The baker in the Colorado case, like many bake shops, had standard pricing and a flip book of standard designs to choose from.

You can request a custom job, and here's the thing--the law doesn't compel doing custom work. I explained this once already, but the law doesn't require making custom "bespoke" designs you don't want to. You have that freedom. You can refuse to make flaming rainbow cakes if you want.

But if you have a book of common offerings and prices, and someone literally walks in and says, "I want the standard round three-tier with green and pink accents", they're accepting an offer you already put out there to make such a thing on demand. If you say no, it has to be for a reason other than just who they are.

I'm not arguing whether or not it is "sold to the general public" just that emotionally it is quite reasonable that baker consider themselves a participant in the event (like the rolling Stones via their mass produced album). And how a baker could consider it an expressive act in support of said event.

There is literally nothing reasonable about that. I will concede that a product creator might feel emotional about how their product is used by a particular person, if they learn about it. But their emotions do not and should not override core principles of equality and fairness in this country. In 1964, white people didn't like black people suddenly staying in the same hotel they did. One hotel owner sued to get the Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional, for pretty much the same reasons bakers are refusing to serve gays today. He felt it violated his personal rights as a proprietor to be forced to allow black people to stay at his hotel against his will. The case was called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. He lost.

There is some form of truth to his position, but the truth was that the emotions and bias of a proprietor weighed less than the heavy burden of racial inequality, which was otherwise unsolvable up to that point. And so it is the same here. I'll grant you a person's emotions, but that person has other ways of avoiding having those emotions (like choosing not to sell stuff to the general public they might get deeply emotional about) if avoiding those emotions is so important to them.

Also being commission only with no public storefront is not always protection. Many wedding photographers have no storefront and only work on commission yet they still run afoul of these laws.

I think you're referring to a case about a photography business in New Mexico. One woman in a lesbian couple inquired for her wedding she was told "we shoot traditional weddings" only, but when her fiancée (not mentioning what kind of marriage it was) separately inquired, she was immediately sent a list of standard packages and pricing.

Again, this isn't some bespoke thing, it's someone commoditizing their services and advertising them on a menu to the public at standard rates. If you are willing to offer photography at a fixed rate and to make offers to the general public, you should be prepared for the general public to accept those offers.

The law in most states doesn't apply in those circumstances (because it doesn't prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, or it doesn't extend to photography services, or both), but the same logic applies when someone is holding themselves out to the public with standard service and pricing options.

How is a legal right "along the lines" of refusing to do business with a homophobic baker?I didn't say he should be allowed to refuse you. I'm saying that if chooses to make his views public I would feel like betraying those exact moral values he's trampling on if I buy from him.

Do you think you've gained something if you're black and go get a hair cut in a KKK saloon? Or maybe go for a beer in a nazi pub? What's the point? Exercising your rights is more important than enjoying life?

You do realize that having lunch in a KKK cafe was exactly what many civil rights activists did as a protest, don't you? Do you think that civil rights would have gotten anywhere if all they did was write on Yelp "Don't go there, the staff dress kinda funny"? Rosa Parks refused to abide KKK inspired rules on a bus and wound up in jail and sparking major reforms. One of the major turning points in the civil rights movement was the Selma march where a bunch of blacks got the living crap beat out of them.

So yeah, sometimes exercising your rights IS A FUCKTON MORE IMPORTANT THAN ENJOYING LIFE.

You keep coming up with these weird examples that have no resemblance with the case in point. That was racial segregation on a public service. For a comparable situation imagine Rosa Parks would have ordered a limo with a driver she knew was a racist. Now why would she do that?I'm not sure why you're so angry. Maybe I'm just lucky and don't need to defend my rights as often as you do. Or maybe you really like cakes?..

Rosa Parks literally boarded a bus with a driver who was a racist. What's your point?

How is a legal right "along the lines" of refusing to do business with a homophobic baker?I didn't say he should be allowed to refuse you. I'm saying that if chooses to make his views public I would feel like betraying those exact moral values he's trampling on if I buy from him.

Do you think you've gained something if you're black and go get a hair cut in a KKK saloon? Or maybe go for a beer in a nazi pub? What's the point? Exercising your rights is more important than enjoying life?

You do realize that having lunch in a KKK cafe was exactly what many civil rights activists did as a protest, don't you? Do you think that civil rights would have gotten anywhere if all they did was write on Yelp "Don't go there, the staff dress kinda funny"? Rosa Parks refused to abide KKK inspired rules on a bus and wound up in jail and sparking major reforms. One of the major turning points in the civil rights movement was the Selma march where a bunch of blacks got the living crap beat out of them.

So yeah, sometimes exercising your rights IS A FUCKTON MORE IMPORTANT THAN ENJOYING LIFE.

You keep coming up with these weird examples that have no resemblance with the case in point. That was racial segregation on a public service. For a comparable situation imagine Rosa Parks would have ordered a limo with a driver she knew was a racist. Now why would she do that?I'm not sure why you're so angry. Maybe I'm just lucky and don't need to defend my rights as often as you do. Or maybe you really like cakes?..

Rosa Parks literally boarded a bus with a driver who was a racist. What's your point?

IIUC, he suspects that the wedding cake will be deliberately of a bad standard because the baker is miffed at having been compelled to make it.

I have an honest question. I fear it will be perceived as trolling, I'm honestly questioning though.

When I read the comment forums here at ARS on some of these controversial issues, one of the common responses I *think* I see is the idea that since Google is a private company, they have the right to host/promote whatever they want; that the demands of free speech are not valid because it's not the government we're talking about here. This was a common opinion regarding the nazi dude's frustrations getting hosted or whatever recently.

On the flip side is the common carrier ideas. Provide a service, provide it to everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a government bus or a private bus company any one can sit in your bus and sit where they want. Same with the baker controversies. You're a baker. You don't get to decide who you bake cakes for based on what they do in their bedroom.

These two view points seem inconsistent to me. What is the clarification I am missing.

And another question, as long as I'm already in long post mode... One of the recurring themes with legislating that "content" transporters like ISPs and Googles (as opposed to content creators) can't be held responsible for what they host, is the complaint that it would cost too much and be prohibitive to be held responsible for the legality of the content they transport. But as a company like google or other internet service exercises their right to decide who they do business with and who they don't, don't they run the risk of the invalidating the claim? Can't the judge come back and say "you apparently DO have the bandwidth to police your content when it's in the interest of your business model, but not the laws of the land?"

You are mixing a few separate issues here. Google being private matters because, generally speaking, the First Amendment only applies to *government* restricting speech (and very originally, it only applied to the *federal* government, until I believe the 14th Amendment).

The "common carrier" idea is a concept that is, when it comes to Google and the like, not enshrined in any law whatsoever. Basically, it applies to landline phone service (and to some extent cellular), but little else.

You people are not going to like this reasoning when it goes all "Continuum" on us.

Or "Dark Matter"...

Or... ...must I list them all?

I loved "Continuum", it was a great show, had a lot to say about the three-way balance of power between individuals, corporations, and government, and it's totally irrelevant here.

The government has a well developed set of tools to deal with a single corporation or cartel exercising suppressive market power. It's called antitrust law. We also have a general set of tools that government already uses to impose consumer/citizen-protecting obligations on entire industries. They're called regulations.

The Europeans recently enacted a hybrid of the two, a privacy regulation that includes monopoly-busting data rights. When that goes into effect next May, any social media or data publishing company will be required to give a copy of your data back to you in a machine readable format ingestible by competitors. Don't like Facebook? Take your data with you, give it to a social media startup, and have your posts and shares and photos there.

If what you really care about is the excessive market power of corporations, are you supporting the FTC? The EPA? Are you calling your congressperson and telling them to stop gutting the power of the CFPB? Are you demanding the DOJ start enforcing antitrust laws again?

Because if you're afraid of "Continuum" and the corporate Congress, that's what you should be doing.

I'm just not feeling very well protected.

Have I contacted my Congressman? Every time I want them to hear me. It is is my post history - take my word; don't wade through it-

Demanding? No; I'm warning.

...as did all the science-fictionprediction writers.

Don't paint a rosy picture of 'government has this' when government is owned by corporations and had laws written to protect theme.g. Equifax, McDonald's.

I have an honest question. I fear it will be perceived as trolling, I'm honestly questioning though.

When I read the comment forums here at ARS on some of these controversial issues, one of the common responses I *think* I see is the idea that since Google is a private company, they have the right to host/promote whatever they want; that the demands of free speech are not valid because it's not the government we're talking about here. This was a common opinion regarding the nazi dude's frustrations getting hosted or whatever recently.

On the flip side is the common carrier ideas. Provide a service, provide it to everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a government bus or a private bus company any one can sit in your bus and sit where they want. Same with the baker controversies. You're a baker. You don't get to decide who you bake cakes for based on what they do in their bedroom.

These two view points seem inconsistent to me. What is the clarification I am missing.

And another question, as long as I'm already in long post mode... One of the recurring themes with legislating that "content" transporters like ISPs and Googles (as opposed to content creators) can't be held responsible for what they host, is the complaint that it would cost too much and be prohibitive to be held responsible for the legality of the content they transport. But as a company like google or other internet service exercises their right to decide who they do business with and who they don't, don't they run the risk of the invalidating the claim? Can't the judge come back and say "you apparently DO have the bandwidth to police your content when it's in the interest of your business model, but not the laws of the land?"

You are mixing a few separate issues here. Google being private matters because, generally speaking, the First Amendment only applies to *government* restricting speech (and very originally, it only applied to the *federal* government, until I believe the 14th Amendment).

The "common carrier" idea is a concept that is, when it comes to Google and the like, not enshrined in any law whatsoever. Basically, it applies to landline phone service (and to some extent cellular), but little else.

You people are not going to like this reasoning when it goes all "Continuum" on us.

Or "Dark Matter"...

Or... ...must I list them all?

I loved "Continuum", it was a great show, had a lot to say about the three-way balance of power between individuals, corporations, and government, and it's totally irrelevant here.

The government has a well developed set of tools to deal with a single corporation or cartel exercising suppressive market power. It's called antitrust law. We also have a general set of tools that government already uses to impose consumer/citizen-protecting obligations on entire industries. They're called regulations.

The Europeans recently enacted a hybrid of the two, a privacy regulation that includes monopoly-busting data rights. When that goes into effect next May, any social media or data publishing company will be required to give a copy of your data back to you in a machine readable format ingestible by competitors. Don't like Facebook? Take your data with you, give it to a social media startup, and have your posts and shares and photos there.

If what you really care about is the excessive market power of corporations, are you supporting the FTC? The EPA? Are you calling your congressperson and telling them to stop gutting the power of the CFPB? Are you demanding the DOJ start enforcing antitrust laws again?

Because if you're afraid of "Continuum" and the corporate Congress, that's what you should be doing.

I'm just not feeling very well protected.

Have I contacted my Congressman? Every time I want them to hear me. It is is my post history - take my word; don't wade through it-

Demanding? No; I'm warning.

...as did all the science-fictionprediction writers.

Don't paint a rosy picture of 'government has this' when government is owned by corporations and had laws written to protect theme.g. Equifax, McDonald's.

Didn't you say you now longer log in at all when drunk?

I think he's trying to terrify you by suggesting he's like this sober.

I have an honest question. I fear it will be perceived as trolling, I'm honestly questioning though.

When I read the comment forums here at ARS on some of these controversial issues, one of the common responses I *think* I see is the idea that since Google is a private company, they have the right to host/promote whatever they want; that the demands of free speech are not valid because it's not the government we're talking about here. This was a common opinion regarding the nazi dude's frustrations getting hosted or whatever recently.

On the flip side is the common carrier ideas. Provide a service, provide it to everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a government bus or a private bus company any one can sit in your bus and sit where they want. Same with the baker controversies. You're a baker. You don't get to decide who you bake cakes for based on what they do in their bedroom.

These two view points seem inconsistent to me. What is the clarification I am missing.

And another question, as long as I'm already in long post mode... One of the recurring themes with legislating that "content" transporters like ISPs and Googles (as opposed to content creators) can't be held responsible for what they host, is the complaint that it would cost too much and be prohibitive to be held responsible for the legality of the content they transport. But as a company like google or other internet service exercises their right to decide who they do business with and who they don't, don't they run the risk of the invalidating the claim? Can't the judge come back and say "you apparently DO have the bandwidth to police your content when it's in the interest of your business model, but not the laws of the land?"

You are mixing a few separate issues here. Google being private matters because, generally speaking, the First Amendment only applies to *government* restricting speech (and very originally, it only applied to the *federal* government, until I believe the 14th Amendment).

The "common carrier" idea is a concept that is, when it comes to Google and the like, not enshrined in any law whatsoever. Basically, it applies to landline phone service (and to some extent cellular), but little else.

You people are not going to like this reasoning when it goes all "Continuum" on us.

Or "Dark Matter"...

Or... ...must I list them all?

I loved "Continuum", it was a great show, had a lot to say about the three-way balance of power between individuals, corporations, and government, and it's totally irrelevant here.

The government has a well developed set of tools to deal with a single corporation or cartel exercising suppressive market power. It's called antitrust law. We also have a general set of tools that government already uses to impose consumer/citizen-protecting obligations on entire industries. They're called regulations.

The Europeans recently enacted a hybrid of the two, a privacy regulation that includes monopoly-busting data rights. When that goes into effect next May, any social media or data publishing company will be required to give a copy of your data back to you in a machine readable format ingestible by competitors. Don't like Facebook? Take your data with you, give it to a social media startup, and have your posts and shares and photos there.

If what you really care about is the excessive market power of corporations, are you supporting the FTC? The EPA? Are you calling your congressperson and telling them to stop gutting the power of the CFPB? Are you demanding the DOJ start enforcing antitrust laws again?

Because if you're afraid of "Continuum" and the corporate Congress, that's what you should be doing.

I'm just not feeling very well protected.

Have I contacted my Congressman? Every time I want them to hear me. It is is my post history - take my word; don't wade through it-

Demanding? No; I'm warning.

...as did all the science-fictionprediction writers.

Don't paint a rosy picture of 'government has this' when government is owned by corporations and had laws written to protect theme.g. Equifax, McDonald's.

Didn't you say you now longer log in at all when drunk?

Yes and I don't.

I've written all that before.

P.S. If you really are replying to "fuck off snowflake" that may have been a tad overboard but not because I'm drunk. It is not like I called someone a CUNT.

How is a legal right "along the lines" of refusing to do business with a homophobic baker?I didn't say he should be allowed to refuse you. I'm saying that if chooses to make his views public I would feel like betraying those exact moral values he's trampling on if I buy from him.

Do you think you've gained something if you're black and go get a hair cut in a KKK saloon? Or maybe go for a beer in a nazi pub? What's the point? Exercising your rights is more important than enjoying life?

You do realize that having lunch in a KKK cafe was exactly what many civil rights activists did as a protest, don't you? Do you think that civil rights would have gotten anywhere if all they did was write on Yelp "Don't go there, the staff dress kinda funny"? Rosa Parks refused to abide KKK inspired rules on a bus and wound up in jail and sparking major reforms. One of the major turning points in the civil rights movement was the Selma march where a bunch of blacks got the living crap beat out of them.

So yeah, sometimes exercising your rights IS A FUCKTON MORE IMPORTANT THAN ENJOYING LIFE.

You keep coming up with these weird examples that have no resemblance with the case in point. That was racial segregation on a public service. For a comparable situation imagine Rosa Parks would have ordered a limo with a driver she knew was a racist. Now why would she do that?I'm not sure why you're so angry. Maybe I'm just lucky and don't need to defend my rights as often as you do. Or maybe you really like cakes?..

When asked why she did what she did on that bus, Rosa Parks said the same thing every time: "I was tired."

A wedding cake often is a bespoke commissioned work. That just happens to be sold in the same place as the other generic goods such as cookies...

Yeah, no. We're not talking about culinary Mona Lisas here. The baker in the Colorado case, like many bake shops, had standard pricing and a flip book of standard designs to choose from.

You can request a custom job, and here's the thing--the law doesn't compel doing custom work. I explained this once already, but the law doesn't require making custom "bespoke" designs you don't want to. You have that freedom. You can refuse to make flaming rainbow cakes if you want.

But if you have a book of common offerings and prices, and someone literally walks in and says, "I want the standard round three-tier with green and pink accents", they're accepting an offer you already put out there to make such a thing on demand. If you say no, it has to be for a reason other than just who they are.

I'm not arguing whether or not it is "sold to the general public" just that emotionally it is quite reasonable that baker consider themselves a participant in the event (like the rolling Stones via their mass produced album). And how a baker could consider it an expressive act in support of said event.

There is literally nothing reasonable about that. I will concede that a product creator might feel emotional about how their product is used by a particular person, if they learn about it. But their emotions do not and should not override core principles of equality and fairness in this country. In 1964, white people didn't like black people suddenly staying in the same hotel they did. One hotel owner sued to get the Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional, for pretty much the same reasons bakers are refusing to serve gays today. He felt it violated his personal rights as a proprietor to be forced to allow black people to stay at his hotel against his will. The case was called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. He lost.

There is some form of truth to his position, but the truth was that the emotions and bias of a proprietor weighed less than the heavy burden of racial inequality, which was otherwise unsolvable up to that point. And so it is the same here. I'll grant you a person's emotions, but that person has other ways of avoiding having those emotions (like choosing not to sell stuff to the general public they might get deeply emotional about) if avoiding those emotions is so important to them.

Also being commission only with no public storefront is not always protection. Many wedding photographers have no storefront and only work on commission yet they still run afoul of these laws.

I think you're referring to a case about a photography business in New Mexico. One woman in a lesbian couple inquired for her wedding she was told "we shoot traditional weddings" only, but when her fiancée (not mentioning what kind of marriage it was) separately inquired, she was immediately sent a list of standard packages and pricing.

Again, this isn't some bespoke thing, it's someone commoditizing their services and advertising them on a menu to the public at standard rates. If you are willing to offer photography at a fixed rate and to make offers to the general public, you should be prepared for the general public to accept those offers.

The law in most states doesn't apply in those circumstances (because it doesn't prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, or it doesn't extend to photography services, or both), but the same logic applies when someone is holding themselves out to the public with standard service and pricing options.

You keep arguing points I'm not arguing. About whether or not society considers this a "public establishment/service/whatever". I was just trying to point out that the baker can feel the way he does and that there is precident for people from either side of the isle to feel that way about a commoditized product"

The baker can feel one way (and be sincere in those beliefs) and society can feel a different way and still be sincere in those beliefs. They can both exist simultaneously.

As an asside the real issue here isn't the cakes (because people care about as much about cakes as Marie Antoinette's head)... It's about the methods society employs to "reform" those it considers bigots or regressive (else no need for protected classes). The courts/legislatures have made decisions that peoples ability to make a living within that society is the way to force social compliance. (The "Choice" consider all society as one, or don't do business with society). Right or wrong it is what it is... The baker feels one way the state feels another....

A wedding cake often is a bespoke commissioned work. That just happens to be sold in the same place as the other generic goods such as cookies...

Yeah, no. We're not talking about culinary Mona Lisas here. The baker in the Colorado case, like many bake shops, had standard pricing and a flip book of standard designs to choose from.

You can request a custom job, and here's the thing--the law doesn't compel doing custom work. I explained this once already, but the law doesn't require making custom "bespoke" designs you don't want to. You have that freedom. You can refuse to make flaming rainbow cakes if you want.

But if you have a book of common offerings and prices, and someone literally walks in and says, "I want the standard round three-tier with green and pink accents", they're accepting an offer you already put out there to make such a thing on demand. If you say no, it has to be for a reason other than just who they are.

I'm not arguing whether or not it is "sold to the general public" just that emotionally it is quite reasonable that baker consider themselves a participant in the event (like the rolling Stones via their mass produced album). And how a baker could consider it an expressive act in support of said event.

There is literally nothing reasonable about that. I will concede that a product creator might feel emotional about how their product is used by a particular person, if they learn about it. But their emotions do not and should not override core principles of equality and fairness in this country. In 1964, white people didn't like black people suddenly staying in the same hotel they did. One hotel owner sued to get the Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional, for pretty much the same reasons bakers are refusing to serve gays today. He felt it violated his personal rights as a proprietor to be forced to allow black people to stay at his hotel against his will. The case was called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. He lost.

There is some form of truth to his position, but the truth was that the emotions and bias of a proprietor weighed less than the heavy burden of racial inequality, which was otherwise unsolvable up to that point. And so it is the same here. I'll grant you a person's emotions, but that person has other ways of avoiding having those emotions (like choosing not to sell stuff to the general public they might get deeply emotional about) if avoiding those emotions is so important to them.

Also being commission only with no public storefront is not always protection. Many wedding photographers have no storefront and only work on commission yet they still run afoul of these laws.

I think you're referring to a case about a photography business in New Mexico. One woman in a lesbian couple inquired for her wedding she was told "we shoot traditional weddings" only, but when her fiancée (not mentioning what kind of marriage it was) separately inquired, she was immediately sent a list of standard packages and pricing.

Again, this isn't some bespoke thing, it's someone commoditizing their services and advertising them on a menu to the public at standard rates. If you are willing to offer photography at a fixed rate and to make offers to the general public, you should be prepared for the general public to accept those offers.

The law in most states doesn't apply in those circumstances (because it doesn't prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, or it doesn't extend to photography services, or both), but the same logic applies when someone is holding themselves out to the public with standard service and pricing options.

The real issue here isn't the cakes... It's punishing and ostracising and trying to "reform" those society considers bigots or regressive (else no need for protected classes). The courts/legislatures have made decisions that peoples ability to make a living within that society is the way to force social compliance. (The "Choice" consider all society as one, or don't do business with society). Right or wrong it is what it is... The baker feels one way the state feels another....

Hey, you have stumbled on what it means to live in civilization. Live according to the guidelines that allows all in that society to flourish. All. You don't like it? Go find a cave.

You propose those who express discriminatory views deserve protection, rather than those oppressed. It's cool, you say, for bigots to attempt to reform those they perceive to be deviants, but not okay for the ENTIRE FUCKING SOCIETY to tell the bigots to cool it.

A wedding cake often is a bespoke commissioned work. That just happens to be sold in the same place as the other generic goods such as cookies...

Yeah, no. We're not talking about culinary Mona Lisas here. The baker in the Colorado case, like many bake shops, had standard pricing and a flip book of standard designs to choose from.

You can request a custom job, and here's the thing--the law doesn't compel doing custom work. I explained this once already, but the law doesn't require making custom "bespoke" designs you don't want to. You have that freedom. You can refuse to make flaming rainbow cakes if you want.

But if you have a book of common offerings and prices, and someone literally walks in and says, "I want the standard round three-tier with green and pink accents", they're accepting an offer you already put out there to make such a thing on demand. If you say no, it has to be for a reason other than just who they are.

I'm not arguing whether or not it is "sold to the general public" just that emotionally it is quite reasonable that baker consider themselves a participant in the event (like the rolling Stones via their mass produced album). And how a baker could consider it an expressive act in support of said event.

There is literally nothing reasonable about that. I will concede that a product creator might feel emotional about how their product is used by a particular person, if they learn about it. But their emotions do not and should not override core principles of equality and fairness in this country. In 1964, white people didn't like black people suddenly staying in the same hotel they did. One hotel owner sued to get the Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional, for pretty much the same reasons bakers are refusing to serve gays today. He felt it violated his personal rights as a proprietor to be forced to allow black people to stay at his hotel against his will. The case was called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. He lost.

There is some form of truth to his position, but the truth was that the emotions and bias of a proprietor weighed less than the heavy burden of racial inequality, which was otherwise unsolvable up to that point. And so it is the same here. I'll grant you a person's emotions, but that person has other ways of avoiding having those emotions (like choosing not to sell stuff to the general public they might get deeply emotional about) if avoiding those emotions is so important to them.

Also being commission only with no public storefront is not always protection. Many wedding photographers have no storefront and only work on commission yet they still run afoul of these laws.

I think you're referring to a case about a photography business in New Mexico. One woman in a lesbian couple inquired for her wedding she was told "we shoot traditional weddings" only, but when her fiancée (not mentioning what kind of marriage it was) separately inquired, she was immediately sent a list of standard packages and pricing.

Again, this isn't some bespoke thing, it's someone commoditizing their services and advertising them on a menu to the public at standard rates. If you are willing to offer photography at a fixed rate and to make offers to the general public, you should be prepared for the general public to accept those offers.

The law in most states doesn't apply in those circumstances (because it doesn't prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, or it doesn't extend to photography services, or both), but the same logic applies when someone is holding themselves out to the public with standard service and pricing options.

The real issue here isn't the cakes... It's punishing and ostracising and trying to "reform" those society considers bigots or regressive (else no need for protected classes). The courts/legislatures have made decisions that peoples ability to make a living within that society is the way to force social compliance. (The "Choice" consider all society as one, or don't do business with society). Right or wrong it is what it is... The baker feels one way the state feels another....

Hey, you have stumbled on what it means to live in civilization. Live according to the guidelines that allows all in that society to flourish. All. You don't like it? Go find a cave.

You propose those who express discriminatory views deserve protection, rather than those oppressed. It's cool, you say, for bigots to attempt to reform those they perceive to be deviants, but not okay for the ENTIRE FUCKING SOCIETY to tell the bigots to cool it.

Rethink your world view.

Todays oppressed is tomorrow's oppressor... What is fashionable and praiseworthy today will be reviled tomorrow.

Disagreeing with the methods is not disagreeing with the goals... Saying a role of the government with it's courts, jails, taxes is to reform people's thoughts is Orwelian and scarry. I prefer a society that allows for diversity in thought and letting truly stupid ideas shrivel and die..

A wedding cake often is a bespoke commissioned work. That just happens to be sold in the same place as the other generic goods such as cookies...

Yeah, no. We're not talking about culinary Mona Lisas here. The baker in the Colorado case, like many bake shops, had standard pricing and a flip book of standard designs to choose from.

You can request a custom job, and here's the thing--the law doesn't compel doing custom work. I explained this once already, but the law doesn't require making custom "bespoke" designs you don't want to. You have that freedom. You can refuse to make flaming rainbow cakes if you want.

But if you have a book of common offerings and prices, and someone literally walks in and says, "I want the standard round three-tier with green and pink accents", they're accepting an offer you already put out there to make such a thing on demand. If you say no, it has to be for a reason other than just who they are.

I'm not arguing whether or not it is "sold to the general public" just that emotionally it is quite reasonable that baker consider themselves a participant in the event (like the rolling Stones via their mass produced album). And how a baker could consider it an expressive act in support of said event.

There is literally nothing reasonable about that. I will concede that a product creator might feel emotional about how their product is used by a particular person, if they learn about it. But their emotions do not and should not override core principles of equality and fairness in this country. In 1964, white people didn't like black people suddenly staying in the same hotel they did. One hotel owner sued to get the Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional, for pretty much the same reasons bakers are refusing to serve gays today. He felt it violated his personal rights as a proprietor to be forced to allow black people to stay at his hotel against his will. The case was called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. He lost.

There is some form of truth to his position, but the truth was that the emotions and bias of a proprietor weighed less than the heavy burden of racial inequality, which was otherwise unsolvable up to that point. And so it is the same here. I'll grant you a person's emotions, but that person has other ways of avoiding having those emotions (like choosing not to sell stuff to the general public they might get deeply emotional about) if avoiding those emotions is so important to them.

Also being commission only with no public storefront is not always protection. Many wedding photographers have no storefront and only work on commission yet they still run afoul of these laws.

I think you're referring to a case about a photography business in New Mexico. One woman in a lesbian couple inquired for her wedding she was told "we shoot traditional weddings" only, but when her fiancée (not mentioning what kind of marriage it was) separately inquired, she was immediately sent a list of standard packages and pricing.

Again, this isn't some bespoke thing, it's someone commoditizing their services and advertising them on a menu to the public at standard rates. If you are willing to offer photography at a fixed rate and to make offers to the general public, you should be prepared for the general public to accept those offers.

The law in most states doesn't apply in those circumstances (because it doesn't prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, or it doesn't extend to photography services, or both), but the same logic applies when someone is holding themselves out to the public with standard service and pricing options.

The real issue here isn't the cakes... It's punishing and ostracising and trying to "reform" those society considers bigots or regressive (else no need for protected classes). The courts/legislatures have made decisions that peoples ability to make a living within that society is the way to force social compliance. (The "Choice" consider all society as one, or don't do business with society). Right or wrong it is what it is... The baker feels one way the state feels another....

Hey, you have stumbled on what it means to live in civilization. Live according to the guidelines that allows all in that society to flourish. All. You don't like it? Go find a cave.

You propose those who express discriminatory views deserve protection, rather than those oppressed. It's cool, you say, for bigots to attempt to reform those they perceive to be deviants, but not okay for the ENTIRE FUCKING SOCIETY to tell the bigots to cool it.

Rethink your world view.

Todays oppressed is tomorrow's oppressor... What is fashionable and praiseworthy today will be reviled tomorrow.

Disagreeing with the methods is not disagreeing with the goals... Saying a role of the government with it's courts, jails, taxes is to reform people's thoughts is Orwelian and scarry. I prefer a society that allows for diversity in thought and letting truly stupid ideas shrivel and die..

Who mentioned government? Serious conflation you're attempting there. Or maybe projection--dunno. Not trying to get into your head. I do reject the notion that expecting we treat each other decently is oppression.

Society does allow diversity in thought. We're having this debate, are we not? Society also is well within its rights to establish reasonable boundaries. In this case, what google is doing allows the dialogue while nudging some "truly stupid ideas" towards the shriveling death I think you agree they deserve.

So, again: where does government come into play here? This is the marketplace doing what the marketplace should be doing. A shopkeeper gives space on his shelves to stuff he wants to sell his customers. If he thinks a vendor is offering crap, he doesn't put it on his shelves.

A wedding cake often is a bespoke commissioned work. That just happens to be sold in the same place as the other generic goods such as cookies...

Yeah, no. We're not talking about culinary Mona Lisas here. The baker in the Colorado case, like many bake shops, had standard pricing and a flip book of standard designs to choose from.

You can request a custom job, and here's the thing--the law doesn't compel doing custom work. I explained this once already, but the law doesn't require making custom "bespoke" designs you don't want to. You have that freedom. You can refuse to make flaming rainbow cakes if you want.

But if you have a book of common offerings and prices, and someone literally walks in and says, "I want the standard round three-tier with green and pink accents", they're accepting an offer you already put out there to make such a thing on demand. If you say no, it has to be for a reason other than just who they are.

I'm not arguing whether or not it is "sold to the general public" just that emotionally it is quite reasonable that baker consider themselves a participant in the event (like the rolling Stones via their mass produced album). And how a baker could consider it an expressive act in support of said event.

There is literally nothing reasonable about that. I will concede that a product creator might feel emotional about how their product is used by a particular person, if they learn about it. But their emotions do not and should not override core principles of equality and fairness in this country. In 1964, white people didn't like black people suddenly staying in the same hotel they did. One hotel owner sued to get the Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional, for pretty much the same reasons bakers are refusing to serve gays today. He felt it violated his personal rights as a proprietor to be forced to allow black people to stay at his hotel against his will. The case was called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. He lost.

There is some form of truth to his position, but the truth was that the emotions and bias of a proprietor weighed less than the heavy burden of racial inequality, which was otherwise unsolvable up to that point. And so it is the same here. I'll grant you a person's emotions, but that person has other ways of avoiding having those emotions (like choosing not to sell stuff to the general public they might get deeply emotional about) if avoiding those emotions is so important to them.

Also being commission only with no public storefront is not always protection. Many wedding photographers have no storefront and only work on commission yet they still run afoul of these laws.

I think you're referring to a case about a photography business in New Mexico. One woman in a lesbian couple inquired for her wedding she was told "we shoot traditional weddings" only, but when her fiancée (not mentioning what kind of marriage it was) separately inquired, she was immediately sent a list of standard packages and pricing.

Again, this isn't some bespoke thing, it's someone commoditizing their services and advertising them on a menu to the public at standard rates. If you are willing to offer photography at a fixed rate and to make offers to the general public, you should be prepared for the general public to accept those offers.

The law in most states doesn't apply in those circumstances (because it doesn't prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, or it doesn't extend to photography services, or both), but the same logic applies when someone is holding themselves out to the public with standard service and pricing options.

The real issue here isn't the cakes... It's punishing and ostracising and trying to "reform" those society considers bigots or regressive (else no need for protected classes). The courts/legislatures have made decisions that peoples ability to make a living within that society is the way to force social compliance. (The "Choice" consider all society as one, or don't do business with society). Right or wrong it is what it is... The baker feels one way the state feels another....

Hey, you have stumbled on what it means to live in civilization. Live according to the guidelines that allows all in that society to flourish. All. You don't like it? Go find a cave.

You propose those who express discriminatory views deserve protection, rather than those oppressed. It's cool, you say, for bigots to attempt to reform those they perceive to be deviants, but not okay for the ENTIRE FUCKING SOCIETY to tell the bigots to cool it.

Rethink your world view.

Todays oppressed is tomorrow's oppressor... What is fashionable and praiseworthy today will be reviled tomorrow.

Disagreeing with the methods is not disagreeing with the goals... Saying a role of the government with it's courts, jails, taxes is to reform people's thoughts is Orwelian and scarry. I prefer a society that allows for diversity in thought and letting truly stupid ideas shrivel and die..

Who mentioned government? Serious conflation you're attempting there. Or maybe projection--dunno. Not trying to get into your head. I do reject the notion that expecting we treat each other decently is oppression.

Society does allow diversity in thought. We're having this debate, are we not? Society also is well within its rights to establish reasonable boundaries. In this case, what google is doing allows the dialogue while nudging some "truly stupid ideas" towards the shriveling death I think you agree they deserve.

So, again: where does government come into play here? This is the marketplace doing what the marketplace should be doing. A shopkeeper gives space on his shelves to stuff he wants to sell his customers. If he thinks a vendor is offering crap, he doesn't put it on his shelves.

Government - Cake bakers in Colorado (the thread that has induced passionate responses for ShelbyStripes). And the use of public accommodation laws(sure I'm botching the term) to force out of business non-conformists.

Google and Prager - Is more along the lines of traditional civil society and it's soft power. The PragerU VS Google thing is really a seperate topic (Is YouTube a defacto public square/forum), that our discussion had veared way off of.

IF the newly oppressed can somehow become a protected class.... (Aka society thinks of them as defenseless cute kittens not flaming assholes)

Do me a favor before we descend down this rabbit hole any further: describe what you think a protected class is, and give some examples.

Legally sex, race and sometimes gender or religion. (Attempt to make the laws neutral).. In reality these were typically written to protect those perceived to be "NOT IN POWER". So much of the case law in the US revolves around complaints from Women Minorities, Homosexuals and Athiests. Not to say there are not cases supporting Men Whites Straights or Theists. Just that attempts by people in those categories to defend what they perceive as descimination are often met with derision contempt and a general lack of support.

I'm all for a egalitarian society where individuals are not ostracised or forced into the poor house for differing beliefs or origins. The whole governmental angle of taking away livelihoods of those who disagree, with this philosophy I'm less inclined to support.

Legally sex, race and sometimes gender or religion. (Attempt to make the laws neutral).. In reality these were typically written to protect those perceived to be "NOT IN POWER". So much of the case law in the US revolves around complaints from Women Minorities, Homosexuals and Athiests. Not to say there are not cases supporting Men Whites Straights or Theists. Just that attempts by people in those categories to defend what they perceive as descimination are often met with derision contempt and a general lack of support.

I'm all for a egalitarian society where individuals are not ostracised or forced into the poor house for differing beliefs or origins. The whole governmental angle of taking away livelihoods of those who disagree, with this philosophy I'm less inclined to support.

Okay, great. You've correctly identified the correct "type" of things that make up class-- general categories of sex/race/etc. That good, as lots of people mistakenly think that it protects being a minority, or being a woman, but that's not the case.

The fact that they were written to protect people who had been systematically oppressed is also correct, but they were written broadly to protect everyone. Early case law reflects more for the oppressed than the majority, but...um....they're the ones who needed it. There is, of course, a more recent trend of this being challenged. Cases where contracts for government work were used to try to help minority-owned businesses have been ruled as violating this rule, for example. White students have successfully shot down several forms of affirmative action in universities, and even progressive justices have suggested that eventually, affirmative action will be completely outlawed.

So the idea that "the oppressed becomes the oppressor" doesn't really pan out in reality. You're not going to be able to be a gay baker refusing to bake cakes for straight people, either.

Being told you have to respect the civil rights of other humans isn't "oppression". It just isn't. If your beliefs and opinions lead you to choose to leave your profession, rather than respect the civil rights of others, that isn't oppression. That's you making a choice about what matters to you more. And that's fine. You have to live with that. Just as racist assholes had to deal with the same thing when we went through this when they refuses to serve minorities.

Oh, and fuck the idea that you can't be ostracized for beliefs or opinions. People who dehumanize others based on immutable characteristics can absolutely be told that they're garbage people, shunned from polite society, and told that they need to grow the fuck up. They're welcome to believe whatever dumb, bigoted bullshit they want. But everyone else is free to tell them that they're garbage humans. That's the power of speech.

Then there is the "support" thing as a society we root for the underdog and throw legal help and money at them.... ACLU, EFF, NAACP. That further serves to sqew the application of the law one way or another because those "not in power" get resources to pursue others for free.

Legally sex, race and sometimes gender or religion. (Attempt to make the laws neutral).. In reality these were typically written to protect those perceived to be "NOT IN POWER". So much of the case law in the US revolves around complaints from Women Minorities, Homosexuals and Athiests. Not to say there are not cases supporting Men Whites Straights or Theists. Just that attempts by people in those categories to defend what they perceive as descimination are often met with derision contempt and a general lack of support.

I'm all for a egalitarian society where individuals are not ostracised or forced into the poor house for differing beliefs or origins. The whole governmental angle of taking away livelihoods of those who disagree, with this philosophy I'm less inclined to support.

Okay, great. You've correctly identified the correct "type" of things that make up class-- general categories of sex/race/etc. That good, as lots of people mistakenly think that it protects being a minority, or being a woman, but that's not the case.

The fact that they were written to protect people who had been systematically oppressed is also correct, but they were written broadly to protect everyone. Early case law reflects more for the oppressed than the majority, but...um....they're the ones who needed it. There is, of course, a more recent trend of this being challenged. Cases where contracts for government work were used to try to help minority-owned businesses have been ruled as violating this rule, for example. White students have successfully shot down several forms of affirmative action in universities, and even progressive justices have suggested that eventually, affirmative action will be completely outlawed.

So the idea that "the oppressed becomes the oppressor" doesn't really pan out in reality. You're not going to be able to be a gay baker refusing to bake cakes for straight people, either.

Being told you have to respect the civil rights of other humans isn't "oppression". It just isn't. If your beliefs and opinions lead you to choose to leave your profession, rather than respect the civil rights of others, that isn't oppression. That's you making a choice about what matters to you more. And that's fine. You have to live with that. Just as racist assholes had to deal with the same thing when we went through this when they refuses to serve minorities.

Oh, and fuck the idea that you can't be ostracized for beliefs or opinions. People who dehumanize others based on immutable characteristics can absolutely be told that they're garbage people, shunned from polite society, and told that they need to grow the fuck up. They're welcome to believe whatever dumb, bigoted bullshit they want. But everyone else is free to tell them that they're garbage humans. That's the power of speech.

On Immutabiluty. That is something left up to legislatures(and manipulation)

I could argue that being a "biggoted" evangelist after a certain point is just as "immutable" as homosexualuty... They are the result of complex interactions of genetics, family and society, and individual choice... Attempts to force change of these traits can often result in severe psychological trauma and suicide. Those who think you can tell a person can "just change" these things are speaking out of ignorance.

Ostracization quite often backfires. Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Gaza strip, Polygamus groups, etc. When you cut a group off they then exist in a self reinforcing echo chamber and weird crap comes out... Often amplifying the very trait they were ostracised for.

On Immutabiluty. That is something left up to legislatures(and manipulation)[[

What "manipulation"? Be specific, and provide sources.

Quote:

I could argue that being a "biggoted" evangelist after a certain point is just as "immutable" as homosexualuty...

It would be a foolish argument, unless you have evidence.

Quote:

They are the result of complex interactions of genetics, family and society, and individual choice...

Really, you think being a bigot is genetic? Please, by all means, provide me the scientific data that you're using to arrive at this conclusion.

Quote:

Attempts to force change of these traits can often result in severe psychological trauma and suicide.

Trying to force someone to not be a bigot results in suicide? By all means, give me a link for a source to this specific claim.

Quote:

Those who think you can tell a person can "just change" these things are speaking out of ignorance.

They don't have to change. They just can't operate a business in a discriminatory fashion.

Quote:

Ostracization quite often backfires. Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Polygamus groups, etc. When you cut a group off they then exist in a self reinforcing echo chamber and weird crap comes out... Often amplifying the very trait they were ostracised for.

...and?

You have a hodgepodge of dodges, have no evidence for any of your claims, and you're not actually responding to anything that anyone is claiming. So, their beliefs get reinforced...but you just said that they can't "just change"them anyway. So...who the fuck cares. I'm fine with racists existing. I'm also happy that they can't run their businesses in a discriminatory fashion. And I'm extra double glad that people can, and do, call out their bigoted bullshit for what it is.

I think it's interesting that you seem unable to consider that ostracizing bigoted bullshit is just about the person being ostracized, not improving society as a whole.

On Immutabiluty. That is something left up to legislatures(and manipulation)[[

What "manipulation"? Be specific, and provide sources.

Quote:

I could argue that being a "biggoted" evangelist after a certain point is just as "immutable" as homosexualuty...

It would be a foolish argument, unless you have evidence.

Quote:

They are the result of complex interactions of genetics, family and society, and individual choice...

Really, you think being a bigot is genetic? Please, by all means, provide me the scientific data that you're using to arrive at this conclusion.

Quote:

Attempts to force change of these traits can often result in severe psychological trauma and suicide.

Trying to force someone to not be a bigot results in suicide? By all means, give me a link for a source to this specific claim.

Quote:

Those who think you can tell a person can "just change" these things are speaking out of ignorance.

They don't have to change. They just can't operate a business in a discriminatory fashion.

Quote:

Ostracization quite often backfires. Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Polygamus groups, etc. When you cut a group off they then exist in a self reinforcing echo chamber and weird crap comes out... Often amplifying the very trait they were ostracised for.

...and?

You have a hodgepodge of dodges, have no evidence for any of your claims, and you're not actually responding to anything that anyone is claiming. So, their beliefs get reinforced...but you just said that they can't "just change"them anyway. So...who the fuck cares. I'm fine with racists existing. I'm also happy that they can't run their businesses in a discriminatory fashion. And I'm extra double glad that people can, and do, call out their bigoted bullshit for what it is.

I think it's interesting that you seem unable to consider that ostracizing bigoted bullshit is just about the person being ostracized, not improving society as a whole.

1) Manipulation ---

Legislatures make the very choice of what personality traits is to be considered immutable, sexuality, gender identity or religouse believe. And the judges to interpret those laws. (via confirmation, part of why the Supreme Court appointments are so contentious)

2) genetic component ---

(personally hate using genetics because pathologizes homosexuality and religion, but non the less everyone is a product of everything in their environment including their bodies) --

I think you underestimate the depth to which many of the people who risk their livelihood for religion have it incorporated into their identity.

Look at the martyrs and events such as the Holocaust, French DeChristionisation, Spanish Inquisition, ...And the extreme lengths people would go to too maintain beliefs and not act contrary to them (preference of death).

Or for a more scientific angle the effect of "loss of faith". (which asking the person to change their identity would do)

Deeply held conviction. You are asking them to participate in an act, that is blasphemous to their identity. To do that would require changing their identity... Once again look at martyrs, history of religouse persecution

6) Ostracization "just because" ---

I would prefer laws to actually have a benefit for society and not just to punish assholes for being assholes. Especially when in comes to compelling action, and disallowing passive resistance.

Ostracization is also typically only a tool available to those in power to repress those without... So it's use against those in power is somewhat hypocritical... Ostracization is bad ego let's ostracize those who ostracised us... Something about two wrongs......

The real issue here isn't the cakes... It's punishing and ostracising and trying to "reform" those society considers bigots or regressive (else no need for protected classes). The courts/legislatures have made decisions that peoples ability to make a living within that society is the way to force social compliance. (The "Choice" consider all society as one, or don't do business with society). Right or wrong it is what it is... The baker feels one way the state feels another....

Hey, you have stumbled on what it means to live in civilization. Live according to the guidelines that allows all in that society to flourish. All. You don't like it? Go find a cave.

You propose those who express discriminatory views deserve protection, rather than those oppressed. It's cool, you say, for bigots to attempt to reform those they perceive to be deviants, but not okay for the ENTIRE FUCKING SOCIETY to tell the bigots to cool it.

Rethink your world view.

Todays oppressed is tomorrow's oppressor... What is fashionable and praiseworthy today will be reviled tomorrow.

Disagreeing with the methods is not disagreeing with the goals... Saying a role of the government with it's courts, jails, taxes is to reform people's thoughts is Orwelian and scarry. I prefer a society that allows for diversity in thought and letting truly stupid ideas shrivel and die..

Who mentioned government? Serious conflation you're attempting there. Or maybe projection--dunno. Not trying to get into your head. I do reject the notion that expecting we treat each other decently is oppression.

Society does allow diversity in thought. We're having this debate, are we not? Society also is well within its rights to establish reasonable boundaries. In this case, what google is doing allows the dialogue while nudging some "truly stupid ideas" towards the shriveling death I think you agree they deserve.

So, again: where does government come into play here? This is the marketplace doing what the marketplace should be doing. A shopkeeper gives space on his shelves to stuff he wants to sell his customers. If he thinks a vendor is offering crap, he doesn't put it on his shelves.

Government - Cake bakers in Colorado (the thread that has induced passionate responses for ShelbyStripes). And the use of public accommodation laws(sure I'm botching the term) to force out of business non-conformists.

Google and Prager - Is more along the lines of traditional civil society and it's soft power. The PragerU VS Google thing is really a seperate topic (Is YouTube a defacto public square/forum), that our discussion had veared way off of.

You keep missing the fundamental difference between compelling a vendor to offer a product, and requiring a vendor to serve customers without discrimination.

If you can’t grasp that, you are going to continue to come across as a #gaycaketroll, and we can’t help you.

edit: Nevermind. I read the rest of your posts and it is confirmed. Please change your forum name to #gaycaketroll.

The real issue here isn't the cakes... It's punishing and ostracising and trying to "reform" those society considers bigots or regressive (else no need for protected classes). The courts/legislatures have made decisions that peoples ability to make a living within that society is the way to force social compliance. (The "Choice" consider all society as one, or don't do business with society). Right or wrong it is what it is... The baker feels one way the state feels another....

Hey, you have stumbled on what it means to live in civilization. Live according to the guidelines that allows all in that society to flourish. All. You don't like it? Go find a cave.

You propose those who express discriminatory views deserve protection, rather than those oppressed. It's cool, you say, for bigots to attempt to reform those they perceive to be deviants, but not okay for the ENTIRE FUCKING SOCIETY to tell the bigots to cool it.

Rethink your world view.

Todays oppressed is tomorrow's oppressor... What is fashionable and praiseworthy today will be reviled tomorrow.

Disagreeing with the methods is not disagreeing with the goals... Saying a role of the government with it's courts, jails, taxes is to reform people's thoughts is Orwelian and scarry. I prefer a society that allows for diversity in thought and letting truly stupid ideas shrivel and die..

Who mentioned government? Serious conflation you're attempting there. Or maybe projection--dunno. Not trying to get into your head. I do reject the notion that expecting we treat each other decently is oppression.

Society does allow diversity in thought. We're having this debate, are we not? Society also is well within its rights to establish reasonable boundaries. In this case, what google is doing allows the dialogue while nudging some "truly stupid ideas" towards the shriveling death I think you agree they deserve.

So, again: where does government come into play here? This is the marketplace doing what the marketplace should be doing. A shopkeeper gives space on his shelves to stuff he wants to sell his customers. If he thinks a vendor is offering crap, he doesn't put it on his shelves.

Government - Cake bakers in Colorado (the thread that has induced passionate responses for ShelbyStripes). And the use of public accommodation laws(sure I'm botching the term) to force out of business non-conformists.

Google and Prager - Is more along the lines of traditional civil society and it's soft power. The PragerU VS Google thing is really a seperate topic (Is YouTube a defacto public square/forum), that our discussion had veared way off of.

You keep missing the fundamental difference between compelling a vendor to offer a product, and requiring a vendor to serve customers without discrimination.

If you can’t grasp that, you are going to continue to come across as a #gaycaketroll, and we can’t help you.

edit: Nevermind. I read the rest of your posts and it is confirmed. Please change your forum name to #gaycaketroll.

Haha. I'm not here to be convinced or win popularity contests.. just to exchange ideas. If you can't be convinced how a person could see making a Cake as an act of speech that side of the argument will always seem like uneducated idiotic trolls... and divisions will just widen as we retreat to or idiotic isolated caves and come up with really weird self reinforcing stuff.

Hey, you have stumbled on what it means to live in civilization. Live according to the guidelines that allows all in that society to flourish. All. You don't like it? Go find a cave.

You propose those who express discriminatory views deserve protection, rather than those oppressed. It's cool, you say, for bigots to attempt to reform those they perceive to be deviants, but not okay for the ENTIRE FUCKING SOCIETY to tell the bigots to cool it.

Rethink your world view.

Todays oppressed is tomorrow's oppressor... What is fashionable and praiseworthy today will be reviled tomorrow.

Disagreeing with the methods is not disagreeing with the goals... Saying a role of the government with it's courts, jails, taxes is to reform people's thoughts is Orwelian and scarry. I prefer a society that allows for diversity in thought and letting truly stupid ideas shrivel and die..

Who mentioned government? Serious conflation you're attempting there. Or maybe projection--dunno. Not trying to get into your head. I do reject the notion that expecting we treat each other decently is oppression.

Society does allow diversity in thought. We're having this debate, are we not? Society also is well within its rights to establish reasonable boundaries. In this case, what google is doing allows the dialogue while nudging some "truly stupid ideas" towards the shriveling death I think you agree they deserve.

So, again: where does government come into play here? This is the marketplace doing what the marketplace should be doing. A shopkeeper gives space on his shelves to stuff he wants to sell his customers. If he thinks a vendor is offering crap, he doesn't put it on his shelves.

Government - Cake bakers in Colorado (the thread that has induced passionate responses for ShelbyStripes). And the use of public accommodation laws(sure I'm botching the term) to force out of business non-conformists.

Google and Prager - Is more along the lines of traditional civil society and it's soft power. The PragerU VS Google thing is really a seperate topic (Is YouTube a defacto public square/forum), that our discussion had veared way off of.

You keep missing the fundamental difference between compelling a vendor to offer a product, and requiring a vendor to serve customers without discrimination.

If you can’t grasp that, you are going to continue to come across as a #gaycaketroll, and we can’t help you.

edit: Nevermind. I read the rest of your posts and it is confirmed. Please change your forum name to #gaycaketroll.

Haha. I'm not here to be convinced....

Yes. We know you aren’t here with an open mind. Thank you for acknowledging it.